Hi everyone,

On Thursday 05 August 2010 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 12:22 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote:
> > Now, I would like to know how we should deal with the issue. We (the
> > evolution-kolab developers) could patch the 2.30 version of IMAPX only to
> > get things running. In this case, would our additions be pulled
> > upstream?
> [...] 
> I would strongly recommend that you do it in the development branch
> first, then we can backport it to gnome-2-30.
> I've been backporting most IMAPX changes from master to the 2.30 branch;
> I see no particular reason why we shouldn't backport METADATA support
> too, as long as you're careful not to add new user-visible strings that
> would need translation.

Okay, let's say, we will patch upstream IMAPX to support RFC5464. The patch 
gets reviewed, and after being polished it will (hopefully :-) be accepted in 

How long do you think it would take you to backport such a patch to 2.30, 
assuming we heed to the aforementioned implementation recommendations?

Best regards,


kernel concepts GbR        Tel: +49-271-771091-14
Sieghuetter Hauptweg 48    Fax: +49-271-771091-19
D-57072 Siegen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

evolution-hackers mailing list
To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...

Reply via email to